Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Guy Macon


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an unsuccessful nomination to join the Mediation Committee. Please do not modify it.

Nomination of Guy Macon



 * Nomination of Guy Macon by Steven Zhang : Hi all. I'm happy to present Guy Macon to the Mediation Committee for consideration. Guy has been one of the most active volunteers to DRN, and has resolved a countless number of disputes there. He is calm, thinks out solutions to complex dispute in a structured, intelligent manner, and has excellent grasp of policy. I've also noticed that there are disputes which have been drawn out that he's stuck with until they reach a resolution - and this shows commitment, something important for potential candidates. I am sure that Guy will be an excellent addition to the Committee. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mom! :) I accept the nomination, and hope that I can be of help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * Candidate: Please answer these five questions. Members of the Committee: To pose an additional question, add it to the bottom of this section, and append your signature.

For the last couple of years I have been working on and off at resolving the conflicts at Monty Hall Problem, which is, I believe, Wikipedia's longest running dispute. My latest effort is the RfC that you see on that article's talk page. More recently, I have been active at WP:DRN and the other volunteers seem happy with my work there. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and User:I Jethrobot/MontyHall. I am hoping that this will at last resolve the dispute between the two main disputants. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the core principles of formal mediation?
 * I could, of course, just paraphrase Mediation Committee/Policy, but the reality is that, while I am quite familiar with mediation in general and with Wikipedia's policies, I have never really paid any specific attention to the Mediation Committee in the past, and I need to learn the ropes here by observing and seeing how the more experienced mediators apply them before jumping in. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Discussions during formal mediation are privileged, in that they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (such as Arbitration or a Request for comments). Why is it important that this is so?
 * Some people are very conscious of the audience and will play to the crowd (present or future) if there isn't privilege. By definition, everyone who reaches the Mediation Committee has been at some other DR venue first and many of them will end up in another DR venue later. Knowing that you can speak freely should, in theory, allow resolutions that would not happen if the participates are under a the usual "anything you say can and will be used against you" rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?
 * In real life I am a consultant who fixes broken engineering departments. This involves mediating between engineers and managers and helping them to get past the mistrust and ego problems. If you want to learn more about this, see [ http://www.guymacon.com/structuredengineering.html ] and [ http://www.guymacon.com/mattel.html ].
 * Followup: I could not help but notice that some editors who have been in disputes at WP:DRN have commented here. In general, I do not respond or defend myself from accusations by disputing editors who are unhappy with the results at DRN, but I would like to make one thing clear: DRN is a first stop in dispute resolution and is a far more informal venue than the Mediation Committee. By design we dispute resolution volunteers try to go through the disputes quickly, and we have a wide latitude within DRN to try different approaches such as referring cases to other noticeboards if the issues are too complex or back to the article talk page if we feel more discussion is needed. I am well aware that the Mediation Committee requires an entirely different approach. At DRN we sometimes tell disputants that they have not followed our ground rules, such as the requirement for prior talk page discussion. At the Mediation Committee, such cases are weeded out by the fact that such requests are declined. The Mediation Committee does not adjudicate disputed content. At the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard we are free to adjudicate when we see blatant violations of policies such as WP:BLP. This is, of course, balanced by our total lack of authority -- the disputant is free to ignore anything we say. At the Mediation Committee, the focus is on consensus-building. That's why they are called Mediators and we are called Volunteers. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If your nomination is successful, how active do you anticipate in being as a Committee member? Unless you are appointed to serve in another capacity, such as on the Arbitration Committee, will you mediate a case at least occasionally?
 * After a learning period where I expect to watch and ask questions I expect to be able to handle a reasonable workload. My consulting keeps me busy about 20 hours a week, with some brief periods of 16-hour days. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If appointed to the Committee, will you be willing to subscribe to the Committee's private mailing list, to regularly read the (small number of) e-mails that are exchanged over the mailing list each month, and actively participate in discussions?
 * Yes. I have an email system that can flag those messages, put them at the top of my in box, and alert me. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please go more in-depth on what skills you've learned as a mediator from handling "conflicts at Monty Hall Problem". -- Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to take the "in depth" suggestion seriously, so let me know if this is too lengthy and I will create a condensed version.
 * Long before I started volunteering at WP:DRN, I started monitoring WP:ARBCOM, and when the volume wasn't too high, WP:WQA, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN. (I sort of wish I had monitored WP:MEDCOM now...) The Monty Hall Problem case was especially interesting to me, because I have never been able to understand why the MHP fools so many people (I got the right answer within seconds, yet a bunch of other scientists and engineers don't get it at first).
 * After the MHP arbcom case closed I started watching the MHP talk page, and then I sort of drifted into helping them to resolve the content dispute that remained after arbcom. It just seemed to me that if we went through the steps of Wikipedia dispute resolution and everybody was acting in good faith (which I am convinced that they are), then we should be able to reach a resolution.
 * The first lesson I learned was from comparing the pre-arbcom dispute to the post-arbcom dispute; sometimes you need to exclude a disruptive individual. There was zero hope of any progress while a certain now-banned editor was in the middle of the crowd throwing bombs.
 * Another lesson was the importance of being neutral; one of the two main editors who are in the present dispute came to the article to resolve it and immediately took sides, thus making it worse. By being scrupulously neutral, I was able to gain the trust of both of the major disputants. Resolving disputes is as much about relationships as it is about content.
 * Something that I already knew well that helped in this situation was the importance of treating different people differently. MHP is where the math geeks play, and so a very logical, fact-based approach works best there. For example, one editor was convinced that a particular policy required adopting his preferred version, but when presented with a list of several experienced editors who did not agree, he (correctly) concluded that this particular dispute should be settled by consensus, as opposed to other disputes that need to be settled by telling one side that they are violating policy.  That approach wouldn't have worked in many disputes.
 * In one particular area, I have learned what the problem is but still don't have a general solution: After I put the claims about policy violations to bed got everyone to agree to seek consensus, I found that the two major disputants were both convinced that consensus was on their side. Of course we know what to do about that; run an RfC and see if a consensus can be established. Alas, I could not get agreement on the wording of the RfC -- they simply could not agree about what the dispute was about. I tried various approaches and finally gave up and went back to monitoring the page without commenting. Meanwhile, another editor tried to get a RfC going and failed. Finally, they approached me and asked if I could make an RfC happen, that they had two candidate RfCs that were close, and asked me to make a reconciled RfC (they would accept whatever wording I decided on) and post it. I believe that this was a direct result of my earlier efforts at gaining trust. This is the RfC that you see on the talk page now.
 * Once I posted the RfC and publicized it, I saw what I expected to see; a bunch of math fans all disagreeing with each other, but I did get a large number of comments. When I asked for an uninvolved closer at WP:ANRFC I suggested one or more concurring opinions, and got three very well-qualified editors, who are working on it now -- see
 * 1) Were the following statements mere statements of opinion, or did you have a calculated reason and purpose for making them? If so, what was that reason and purpose? #::First, in the Prem Rawat discussion "I do not believe at this point that Momento himself is educable, but several editors have expressed a concern about Momento's claims going unanswered." Second, saying about Lisa in closing the DRN listing "My theory is that when Codename Lisa wrote 'Although the discussion is not hidden; you can find it easily', he/she was not telling the truth. I certainly could not find it." Additionally, and third, in Prem Rawat you go on after the foregoing statement to say, "You may safely ignore them [i.e. Momento's claims] as being, once again, without merit. Responses by Momento will be ignored unless...." Please explain what you meant by that and by what authority or under what circumstances you were saying that another editor's assertions could be ignored. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of Codename Lisa, I did not and still do not believe that there was any prior discussion; I carefully went through the edit histories of Codename Lisa and those who she had interacted with her looking for that prior discussion. At that point I was faced with a decision; make no comment about this or call her on it, but in the form "my theory is" with an invitation to prove me wrong. What tipped me over to calling her on it were two things: first, she had been to DRN recently on another issue, and second, she was not giving me the slightest indication that she was willing to follow the basic rules for filing a case at DRN: "What this noticeboard is not: It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN." My goal was to discourage future attempts by Codename Lisa to bring disputes to DRN with no prior discussion. Alternatively, (because my theory may be wrong) I was hoping to persuade her to reveal where this alleged prior discussion was. This could have been quite useful because of the distinct possibility that the answer was going to be that the discussion was off-wiki, thus opening the door to helping her to understand why that isn't good enough. It was a judgement call that didn't work. To make things worse, Codename Lisa did not indicate that she was angry until 20 minutes before posting here, so her complaint here was the first I knew that my effort was not getting through to her. At that point I made another judgment call and decided that any response would just fan the flames, but I do intend to go back and apologize once things have calmed down a bit and this nomination is resolved one way or the other.
 * It should be noted that sometimes being blunt does work. If you look at User talk:Saboche, I was very blunt indeed, but in that situation it worked. Saboche had been politely told again and again to stop posting complaints on the English Wikipedia concerning him being blocked on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and he just was not listening. after my blunt comments he stopped the disruptive behavior. In other situations that sort of bluntness would be a disaster. Monty Hall Problem was just such a case; you don't get good results from being aggressive to mathematicians.
 * In the case of Momento, the "educable" comments actually had a net positive effect on him, even though he didn't like them. Before I started using more aggressive language, he was pretty much ignoring anything I or anyone else said. This is a stye of interaction that I am quite familiar with, having seen it the behavior in many engineers in real life. It has been my experience that those who exhibit this behavior pattern thrive on conflict, but dislike being dismissed as being ineducable to the point that they stop dismissing me and start paying attention to my arguments, and indeed it was starting to work. The next step, which I did not get to with Momento, starts with me looking for any opening where I can say he has a point and that I was wrong (and there are always a few -- folks like Momento are generally smart, and he is no exception.) If I could have reached the point where we were hashing out our disagreements as equals, I think I might have been able to slowly work through each issue.


 * EDIT Codename_Lisa was just stupid on my part and I have apologized to her. I have no excuse on that one.
 * So the bottom line is this; with some people being aggressive and blunt works, with others being firm but polite works, and with others being friendly and helpful with a touch of playfulness works. And sometimes I make the wrong call and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. I can tell you that I don't respond emotionally in dispute resolutions (If I feel that I am getting hot under the collar I go do something else for a while) and I am very careful to not put being right or scoring points above the needs of those who are in the dispute. And I am more than willing to change my approach if others think I am being too aggressive. So far, comments about my approach by other dispute resolution volunteers have been positive. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy, the milieu of MedCom is distinctly different from talk page discussions and also somewhat different from DRN. One is encouraged to use reasoned argument on talk pages. Formal mediation is a completely different environment. Your answer to the first question does not suggest that you have yet embraced the principles of mediation which require participants to be collaborative (see principles #3 & #4). Mediators are not arbitrators; nor do they adjudicate. They attempt to find common interests and look for a win/win result. You have said in the past that you sometimes have difficulty with nuances. I can see evidence of that in some of the discussion below. A mediator needs to be able to empathize with all parties to a mediation who are abiding by WP policies. How would you see yourself learning to apply the principles and making the transition to a mediator role? Sunray (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a moot point now, but I would like to address one point. There are many Wikipedia editors who behave the same in all situations and are extremely resistant to change, especially when being advised to change by others. The basic scheme of examining past edits in one context in order to evaluate those editors and predict future behavior in a completely different context works well in that situation. However, I do not believe that this describes me. I change my behavior based upon past successes and failures, I actively seek and follow the advice of others, and -- most importantly -- I behave differently/appropriately in different situations.


 * Up until the moment Steve nominated me, I have had close to zero negative feedback from anyone who isn't also at war with multiple editors and administrators, and those few times when someone advised me that I was taking the wrong approach I immediately complied and was happy for the feedback. I do not think that it is reasonable for someone to expect me to respond to overwhelmingly positive feedback about my performance as a dispute resolution volunteer (by all of the other volunteers and the vast majority of those who were in disputes I was involved in) by somehow realizing that sometime in the future a different set of editors might not like my actions. For example, if there is a new rule saying that once nominated for MedCom I am no longer allowed to raise a question about possible harassment at ANI, that's fine -- I can live with that rule. What I cannot do is predict the future and obey the new rule before I know that it exists. Frankly, it never occurred to me for a second that there was any possibility of that being seen as trying to manipulate this process. I assumed that those who are voting are immune to being influenced by something like that and that I was perfectly free to raise a question at ANI just as any other editor would be, and that if this was no longer true someone would inform me.


 * I am 100% certain that as a mediator I would behave in a manner that is indistinguishable from the existing mediators, and at first I would seek advice before doing anything even slightly differently. Yes, I have no experience with the the milieu of MedCom and would have to learn, but I know how to sit back and watch while I learn without my inexperience causing any harm, and I know how to start slowly, seeking advice until I become experienced.


 * Needless to say, my saying the above poses a problem for anyone evaluating me. What other method is there to evaluate a potential mediator other than to examine his past behavior in a completely different situation? You certainly cannot take my word for it that what I say above is true. One possible solution would be to say no for now and for me to spend the next year acting like a formal mediator while at DRN, thus giving you something to examine. It would be interesting to see if that works better or worse than my current approach in the DRN environment. Or, see my recall idea at the bottom of this discussion for what may be an acceptable alternative solution to this problem.


 * Thank you for your response. I don't think that it is moot. You clearly have done some heavy lifting in difficult dispute situations. To my mind, that suggests some of the skills, along with the motivation to succeed as a mediator. It is true that we only have past behavior to go on and it appears to me that you would need to adapt your approach somewhat to succeed in formal mediation. I would suggest that, whatever the outcome of this application, you might want to work at that. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am definitely going to take the criticism I got here to heart. Besides the obvious (less blunt, more giving the disputant a greater opportunity to come up with a compromise) I am re-evaluating whether going from DRN to the article talk page is ever a good idea. You can expect a discussion about that at DRN and, if there is a consensus on it, a change to the DRN volunteer's instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural question: Given the fact that some committee members have changed their votes, does the nomination shut down as soon as there are two no votes, or does it run to completion in case that change their mind? The paragraph above has at least a small possibility of turning a no into a yes or an abstain. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of candidacy

 * General discussion of the candidacy should go here, not the talk page. Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is still very welcome.

Just to save time for anyone looking for evidence of my Evil Plans, the following may be of interest:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112 (Bottom comment)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4 (Second and fourth comments)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5 (Suggestion number 4)

I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose Guy Macon's candidacy. In just one section of Prem Rawat talk Guy has demonstrated that he is unsuitable to hold any position in Wikipedia. His comments to me have been described as "offensive" and "maligning another editor" by a neutral and experienced editor. Guy falsely claimed that "I refused to accept the fact that Wikipedia has separate articles Rock and roll and Rock music". I made no such comment and Guy refused to provide a diff that shows it despite me asking for proof. Guy claimed that "I refused to accept the fact that the book I referenced talks about Rock music not Rock and Roll". That's correct, I couldn't agree with Guy's claim because Bob Larson's forward in "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion" says "Above all, I pray that the purpose of this book will be plainly understood: Christ is the positive alternative to what youth seeks in rock and roll music".  And finally he asked me exactly the same question twice, proving that he doesn't read my replies carefully. Not bad for one section. Further to Guy's insistence that his OR opinion trumps WP:VER, in the section above titled "Larson's opinion of modern music?"  I wrote "Larson has written several books about Rock and Roll and Satanism" in which Larson claims, Rock and Roll is Satanic". To which Guy replies "It isn't true. Rock and roll is a genre of music from the 1940s and early 1950s, and Larson never said it was satanic". When I provide as sources two books by Larson "Rock and Roll, the Devil's Diversion" [15] and "Hippies, Hindus, and Rock & Roll", Guy replies with this incredible WP:VER defying piece of OR "Bob Larson was writing about Rock music#Golden age (mid- to late 1960s) no matter what name he called it". In conclusion, Guy has singled me out for constant harassment in which he has called me "uneducable", claimed I said things that I didn't and rejected my policy based support of WP:VER against his OR as "misinterpreting our policies and insisting that other editors follow nonexistent rules". In view of the above he is unsuitable for any position in Wikipedia. But then no one listened when I said in 2008, " WillBeback came to the Rawat article with one purpose in mind, to add more criticism. In doing so he has abandoned NPOV and compromised his admin role". It makes prescient reading.Momento (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to add the above but GM's recent opening of an ANI deserves comment. Firstly, GM's characterisation below that our exchange was about editing the Bob Larson article is completely false. I was discussing whether Bob Larson was a Reliable Source for the Prem Rawat article. The idea that I was thinking of editing Larson's article is laughable. GM has created this fiction to try and explain away his WP:VER busting claims that I should ignore what Larson says because GM knows he's really talking about something else. Now he has accused me of harassing him because I opened an exchange with the two other editors who oppose his nomination. GM thinks we're "getting together on (our) own talk page (and possibly off-wiki) in order to coordinate (our) attacks". And still no Committee Member opposes GM's nomination?!?Momento (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Background: The previous post relates to Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 52, and my subsequent suggestion that if he wanted to add some properly sourced material about Bob Larson's claims about Rock music and Satanism, our article about Rock and roll was the wrong place because Larson wrote about the music that we title Rock music. I also suggested Social effects of rock music as a possible location. When I saw that he was fixated on Larson using the title "Rock & Roll" and was in any case unlikely to edit either page. I dropped the subject and moved back to the issue that the DRN case was about.


 * This does bring up an issue that is germane to this page; if you want to help out in any area of dispute resolution, you will be faced with an occasional accusation from someone who is unhappy with the result. In such cases it is important to not take the comments personally and to resist the natural temptation to reply to everything the accuser says. Doing that can derail the dispute resolution by allowing a single disruptive editor too much control over the topic that gets discussed. On the other hand, while not responding publicly, it is always a good idea to give serious consideration to the possibility that you actually did something wrong rather than just dismissing the accusation out of hand.


 * This also shows an error on my part. If I had done some more homework before getting involved in the DRN case, I would have seen these:


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27 Prem Rawat


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem Rawat


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Prem Rawat


 * Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat


 * Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2


 * Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3


 * Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4


 * Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6 (what happened to number 5?)


 * Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat


 * Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive27


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive34


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive35


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive39


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43


 * Clearly this is not case for DRN. DRN is at the bottom of the DR chain -- an early step to resolve non-complex content disputes. It is not a place to revisit cases that have been to the top of the DR chain. Nor is the informal, education based approach I tried likely to succeed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "If anyone wishes to express an opinion, your input would be most welcome. Especially valuable would be criticisms or suggestions about how I could have done something better." Are you kidding? The most uncivil and blatantly abusive editor I've had the chance to run across in my time at WP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You will add evidence to your comment or it will be removed. Calling another editor "the most uncivil... I've had the chance to run across" is a very serious claim and should be substantiated in a process like this. Lord Roem (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) In the spirit of giving those who are evaluating my candidacy as much information as possible, the above appears to be about this interaction:


 * User talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive 1


 * User talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive 1


 * User talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive 1


 * Which started with these comments: Comment 1 and Comment 2. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem adding evidence all you like to substantiate. But I do not know the forum here, whether it can withstand or is appropriate to go into detail here. It is not my idea to substantiate or go into details *here*, but as mentioned I can, if this is a proper forum that has the kind of patience for it. (Is it? Or if not, meet me at my Talk. Or in Email. I don't care. Please don't challenge my integrity for proof. THAT will be no problem, to any reasonable person, I am confident for that. Just give me proper forum. Again, no problem.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. You can do a little research too, right? Everything is public on Wiki.


 * If I go into immediate examples *here*, I risk others claiming it is not a proper forum for it, and worse. If I don't, I risk your threat to delete my comment. Please don't put me in a box. I have asked for proper forum to back up my remarks. I said it was my opinion this editor was the most uncivil I have ever met on WP. That is my experience. If you wish to change that to "a serious claim", well, fine. But it is a claim of an opinion based on my experience. (It is not a specific accusation/claim.) Let's be careful and specific about this if you want to dialogue about it, okay? Thank you for your consideration. (By the way, it is your idea to hear from me further. I'm all for it, if it is what you want or require.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * a taste


 * I was a relatively newbie/green/learning editor, and got into essentially my *first* content dispute with another editor, who wanted to replace a photo of Donald Trump, with a photo of the back of his head (his hair, not his face). I objected. But in my arguments, which I thought would be straight forward on the article Talk to overcoming the change, there was opposition arguments, which muddied to some degree what I thought would be a clear argument to overcome such an inappropriate change. I saved the dialogue in my User space, as a newbie and not knowing how to access archives so confidently, so I could study the Talk discussion/debate, and figure out if my arguments could have been cleaner (my arguments were not the best, but how could I know that then as newbie?), and what arguments were on the other side too, which seemed to muddy. I wanted to analyze the discussion for self improvement and better understanding, how I could have handled the dialogue and arguments better, if possible. (So, after being indef'd by Admin Toddst1 for unrelated reasons later, what does Macon do? After chuming with Toddst1 since Macon was involved in a disagreement with me which lead to my indef? He goes into *all* my subpages, and indef's them, while I'm blocked, and in addition, indef's the Trump discussion page which I had saved, with an edit sum, which you can observe for yourself.)


 * (Just a taste. Where can I add more? Do you want more? I'm ready.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ridicule


 * No one can control who might take them to ANI, or why. I had a contention with a user not very familiar with policy, who took me to ANI because he was "frustrated". No one except Jasper Deng contributed. (I had ealier run-ons with Deng, especially at Talk:Desperado (chess); my interactions with Deng were added by Toddst1 as justification of his indef block on me.) The ANI was baseless, the venue was not appropriate, and the accusations were false. I didn't even know if I should participate to defend myself, but eventually did, to not let the outrageous claims stand. No dialogue except back-and-forths between me and the accuser, User:ChessPlaserLev. Finally, Blade of the Northern Lights closed the ANI, with a comment calling us both "10-yr. olds". (I objected to that remark; the ANI was none of my making, and my participation, though unclearly necessary, was my choice, from uncertainty of a non-participation.) Blade decided to take the complaint and ridicule me, and re-open the ANI and request a block from someone. But during the riducule at Northern's Talk, Macon decided to add his own ridicule. (On what basis? And is this behavior for such a candidate here? I subsequently asked Macon if he considered his remarks civil or not, and he responded that he felt they were 100 percent civil. You be the judge.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to go more to demonstrate abusiveness & incivil behavior by your candidate against me, if you want to challenge me about it further. But the venue should fit said continued presentation; I have no desire to extend this here, but will if it's what's desired/required. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Latest action by your glowing candidate: ANI opened by Macon. I've never been to DRN. I would never write anything for Macon's attention, and I've found it impossible to keep him off my user Talk, even after 4 or 5 clear requests that he not post there. As you saw in earlier diff where he ridiculed me along with Toddst1 & Blade, is it possible Macon is looking for an (unwarranted) block from either of those two chums, to silence chit-chat? Amazing. (Elen, still proud how Guy handles criticism?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your candidate chose to post this at my User talk, apparently as some sort of "warning" for me about user Momento, apparently wanting me to assume certain opinions or conclusions about him that Macon has. I didn't solicit this "advice", and what's more, I've asked Macon 4 or 5 times in the past to please not post at my user Talk, about anything. This is getting very sad! May I suggest that Macon keep his role at DRN, and be happy with it? This nomination, IMO, was a big mistake. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "... with some people being aggressive and blunt works, with others being firm but polite works, and with others being friendly and helpful with a touch of playfulness works. And sometimes I make the wrong call and everything goes to hell in a handbasket." This sounds to me, simply like a rationalization for being rude. ("Hey, I wasn't 'rude' – it was an 'aggressive, blunt approach' that just didn't work this time. Oh well!") Macon created the WP:UNEDUCABLE redirect, which was removed thru a RfD. IMO it was inherently insulting since it's very nature is that of a personal attack. (He created several other redirects as well for WP:ICAN'THEARYOU, implying a knowledge of motive for not hearing, e.g. WP:IWON'TLISTEN. Macon seems to be fond of Whac-A-Mole since he has created numerous misspell redirects for it and has used it frequently, once in contextual reference to me, which I found entirely unnecessary, inappropriate, offensive and uncivil. This editor justifies, and appears to not have a clue, how offensive and insulting he has been, and can be. (So promote him to MEDCOM?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Hi. My first impression: This user interfered in a WP:DRN discussion involving me (which he was not mediating), called me a liar and disruptively closed the discussion. Is insulting the participant the best example of what a MedCom mediator can do? I have faith that it is not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This 'vote' by Codename Lisa was moved from the next section, which is open to editing only by mediators. Please do not edit that section again. Thanks, AGK  [•] 09:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Codename_Lisa is incorrect in here belief that there is something wrong with a DRN volunteer helping in a case that another volunteer is working on. This is not "interference"; it is something that we encourage. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I edited the wrong section by mistake. [edit] link was not working so I entered the URL manually. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: In general, I do mot respond or defend myself from accusations by disputing editors who are unhappy with the results at WP:DRN, but I do at times offer clarifications such as providing a link if one is missing so that the reader can evaluate the claim. In this case the DRN case being referred to is Dispute resolution noticeboard (soon to be Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 53. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The link was not missing. I have provided a permanent link already. But you are implying that I am opposing because a DRN did not go as I favored! Not true. I am unhappy about such lack of regard for WP:NPA. I have been in DRN discussions before and not always they went as I liked; but I am not unhappy: Wikipedia is full of compromises. Yet, per WP:CIVIL, an editor should not be called a liar. Your explanation of the rationale for closure was enough and compelling. You should have stuck with that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You had no link, Guy Macon was just following accepted guidelines for closing DRN threads, and you mistakenly tried to invoke IAR. Perhaps you should AGF a bit more with Guy Macon. Take a closer look at his comment, because his comment didn't actually call you a liar or anything, but merely disputed your claim of prior discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that Guy would make a good mediator, based on his work at DRN and at Monty Hall problem. User:Ihardlythinkso has said similar things about me and about User:Dennis Brown - I would say he's kind of testy about dispute resolution generally, based on his view of it. So maybe the way Guy handles this negative response is also indicative of his suitability for a mediator role. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true I do not like your thought processes, Elen. It is also true I don't like Dennis's. So how does that make my opinions from direct experiences w/ Macon invalidated? Ad hominem. I don't mind fair discussions, your & Dennis's idea of "fair" is messed up, IMO. So that is the basis for my attitude re you & Dennis. In Macon's case, it is something different entirely. (Blatent incivility, personal attacks, a series of shitty things he did towards me. Apparently, since I'm a mere editor and he is a "dispute resolution volunteer", he gets away with incivilities, personal attacks, ridicules, smears, insulting name-calls, and the like. And if I bring that to light here, rather than look at what he's done and deal with it, you try and discredit me generally, as a tactic. Good one.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say any of that. I just said that one could look at the way Guy responded to you as evidence of how he would deal with someone who was suspicious of, or not supportive of, a mediation process. If he handled the situation badly, that would be something important to note. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making a clarification, but, "the way Guy responded to you" relates to what, exactly? (Can you identify what "response" you are specifically referring to, to help me understand you?) Also, "... someone who was suspiscious of, or not supportive of, a mediation process". I have no idea what you are referring to, or what you mean. Can you please identify what you are talking about? (I have no idea.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're overthinking things here. Remember, we discussed this before - I'm talking generality, not one specific post. "How would you deal with a problem customer" is a question frequently asked in interviews for customer service staff (the correct answer being along the lines that the interviewee recognises that the customer may have a good reason for complaining, and will try to find a way to make them less mad so they can deal with it. An interviewee who responds 'call security' tends not to get the job). Something similar is reasonable to ask of a mediator. In Guy's case, I'm beginning to think you may have a point. As a mediator, he's going to get people disagreeing with him in spades I should think. He's just taken you to ANI (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents) which doesn't seem to me to be quite the right approach. And at Talk:Monty_Hall_problem he has got into it a bit with Martin Hogbin over his informal mediation there, in a way that didn't quite seem appropriate in that location. So you see what I am saying. His response when someone makes a complaint might not be ideal. Whether that is enough to disqualify him as a mediator is a question for the committee. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify why my confusion, you had complimented Macon's mediation abilility, before he filed the ANI. (So when you referred to "the way Guy responded to you", it left me without anything to attach to the statement, in order to understand you. But I think I understand you now; thanks for the clarify. p.s. Does the content of Macon's ANI register for anything here? Or just that he filed one? (Because, the content was bogus.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. It was a bit stream of consciousness. I was just referring to the idea of filing an ANI on people who were commenting here, while this request to join was going on - it seemed a bit off to me. You'd have to comment on the content, I haven't really looked at it. The discussion got hatted off pretty quick. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a reasonable point about ANI, but regarding my recent interaction with Martin Hogbin at Talk:Monty_Hall_problem, I was right to do what I did. Martin was getting ready to reject the outcome of the RfC for a completely bogus reason, and if I did not address it as I did it would have completely torpedoed two years of hard work trying to resolve the dispute. I know and respect Martin, I know how his mind works (very smart, very logical and ordered, not at all emotional), and in my rather well-informed opinion he needed to read exactly what I wrote. If that causes problems here, so be it. I did the right thing, and frankly, helping Martin, Rick, and the other folks at Monty Hall problem is more important to me than being a member of MedCom is. I did not seek this nomination. I was asked if I was willing to help. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Level-headed; good knowledge of WP policies. --Noleander (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved this vote from the "voting" section, which is only for members of the Mediation Committee. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 06:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - patient, careful, dedicated. After years there are actually constructive discussions going on nowadays at Talk:Monty_Hall_problem. From time to time various editors do and will get angry with the way they feel they are being handled. Guy remains calm and unflustered. Sure he will make mistakes from time to time, like everyone, but I think he also can admit to making mistakes from time to time, which is the important thing. Richard Gill (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to comment on the opinions above by members of the community, I think that when you've done as much dispute resolution as Guy has, it's inevitable that you will misstep occasionally. I haven't kept track of the amount of disputes Guy has resolved at DRN, but I'd wager at least 50+. I think that has to count for something. Guy is generally cool-headed, and while sometimes he is a little direct, and sometimes bluntness is required. We all have different styles of mediation, different techniques that we use to resolve disputes. I've found Guy's to be effective. With regards to the Prem Rawat dispute in particular and the comments by an editor who frequents that article regularly, I think that with a dispute as intractable as Prem Rawat where the opinions of the parties is strongly ingrained, that disagreeing with the opinion of one may generate a response like the one above. I've had similar experiences when I mediated Prem Rawat in the past, and members of the committee who have had experience with the topic area will be familiar with the climate. Therefore, I don't think this should bring the committee any serious concern. He may be a little rough around the edges, nevertheless I feel he would be an effective addition to the Mediation Committee. I also note that there is a new unassigned case, and historically potential candidates have been allowed to take them as a trial. If the committee has any lingering concerns, I would suggest that be considered as a course of action. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I do not feel that much weight should be given to the comments made by Momento. He has a history of misrepresenting situations - indeed, he did so recently about myself here (indeed, I was even attacked as a result of clarifying the situation). I hope the committee will take this under consideration. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Whilst putting "years" instead of "months" was a mistake which I apologise for, you need to provide some evidence for your "history of misrepresenting situations" claim.Momento (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody "attacked [you]", Steven. Your post/content dispute/debate with Momento on my user Talk had nothing to do w/ me, I asked you to move the discussion to your Talk, article Talk, or Momento's Talk, and you went round-the-horn investing time explaining why you were refusing to do so, and making condescending ("With all due respect") remarks along the way. Please provide a diff showing your idea of "attack" for all to see, so we can get a feel about your judgement, and integrity when you make a serious claim such as having been "attacked". Let's have it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated many times, the comments I made on your talk page were directed at you, not at Momento, which I stated many times. The way you responded to my concerns I felt were of an aggresive nature. If a user misrepresented your actions to me, would you not clarify what actually happened? Because that's what I was doing. Momento told you that I had done something that was not correct, and I was advising you what happened. This was not me starting a content dispute with Momento. Nevertheless, I have stated this many times and I do not feel repeating myself is productive. Therefore, I suggest we allow the committee to decide the outcome of this nomination. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MedCom, I will be taking a wikibreak for a little while. If you require my attention, please contact me via email. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "... the comments I made on your talk page were directed at you, not at Momento". Is that why said comments included this?: "Momento, I have no problems with criticism, but please present facts correctly." And is that why your edit summary was this?: "Momento, please present facts accurately. Thank you." How do you get to a place where you tell me your post wasn't directed to Momento's attention, but to mine, when you are speaking to Momento, and not me??
 * "The way you responded to my concerns I felt were of an aggresive nature." Your "concerns", were about something Momento said, that you believed was untrue --- something about an image insertion in the Prem Rawat article. Why do you think I am supposed to get involved with that and take any interest in your concerns?? That is a content dispute, or just a plain dispute, or whatever, concerning the article, which I'm unaware, have no interest in, and could give a flying rip about. (Get that? Zero interest. None. Zippo.) Why is it you feel that I have to receive your side of an understanding of a dispute, when I know nothing about, don't give a rip, and don't wanna invest my time, in any issue related to that article?? My simple request was that you take your objection, or dispute, or content dispute, or whatever you want to call it, about whatever issues about that article, and discuss it not on my Talk page, where such discussion doesn't belong. Period. And you refused to do that. How does that qualify as an "aggressive attack" on you??? For my disinterest to get involved spending 100 hours of my time figuring who is right or wrong on the side of your issue with Momento??? How does my polite request that you move the discussion with him elsewhere, amount to an "aggressive attack" on you??? This is total bullshit logic and makes no sense, Steven. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked me a Q, Steven ("If a user misrepresented your actions to me, would you not clarify what actually happened?"), so I'll answer it ... Of course I wouldn't like being misrepresented. But before posting my version of a corrected understanding, I'd solicit from you first whether you had any interest. (Had you done that, you would have learned that I didn't, and had no interest to get involved either, to know any of the details.) And then if you did have interest, I would write to you directly. (You didn't do that either in spite of trying now to assert that you did. Your message was directed to Momento, as quoted above, and so was your edit summary.) Does this answer your Q, Steven? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It does. Thank you. I apologise if my contributions were unwanted, and I'll refrain from doing so in future. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that the climate of the Prem Rawat articles has anything to do with GM's nomination but the climate of the PR articles was largely created by people like SZ, GM, Med COM and ARB COM who ignored the overwhelming evidence about WillBeback and his assistants for four years as they harassed me on a daily basis in talk pages and every "official" forum they could find. Now that you know that "WillBeback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", "repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Outing and Harassment policies", "has either initiated or been an active participant in many discussions the frequency of participation is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment" and "For conduct unbecoming an administrator"; you should re-read all the evidence before continuing to drag up my and the Prem Rawat articles past as a means of justifying the same behaviour.Momento (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to Guy Macon: If this is declined at this time, as seems likely, and you wish to resubmit at some point in the future, it may be well for you to consider that one may be right, but in mediation one should also not alienate any of the parties, if at all possible. Candor must sometimes give way to tact. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a point well taken no matter what the outcome here. Of course the situations we have been talking about were not mediations (DRN takes a quite different approach), but the above is good advice in any situation and I fully intend to take it the heart. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Guy, this may seem somewhat harsh, but the aim is constructive criticism about why I would oppose. From past experience you tend to get a bit too involved in disputes while you are mediating and sometimes appear to take sides. In another DRN discussion, involving the editor StillStanding, you appeared to start getting involved in the personal and content related issues as well outside the noticeboard. You withdrew after I noted this, but the lack of detachment would be worrying for someone in medcom. During the Vassula Ryden DRN thread you started joining in making edits using your DRN status: "Comment by dispute resolution volunteer: The previous edit by Arkatakor was the right thing to do. Do not put criticism in the lead, only neutral and sourced facts. Instead, spend your effort improving the criticism section." This seems like something a DRN volunteer should have avoided, and the comment was also not consistent with policy either (as pointed out at Talk:Vassula_Ryden/Archive_2) where the lead is meant to sum up the article, which makes me worry about your level of understanding of NPOV (specifically WP:FRINGE) and what to include in the lead. The change had also not been suggested by anyone else, but by yourself, where no one else involved had formed a consensus for it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mildly and perhaps temporarily By singling out one side of the Prem Rawat argument for his "blunt approach" Guy has unintentionally made the battleground on that article, the 4th most contentious on Wikipedia, a lot bloodier than it already was. To his credit Guy has acknowledged this. When the smoke has cleared and the cries of the wounded have died away, we will need to try again. Guy openly invited feedback on his performance and I replied on his talkpage, my main criticism being that he didn't read the arb/med history of the article before jumping in with his heavy boots. He seems to have accepted my (mild) rebuke. If he truly has an ability to examine an editor's POV and MO and find merit that can be built on, which will be required in a mediating role, I have not seen this yet displayed. Perhaps he should be given the chance to display it in some more article talk page work? Rumiton (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Final Remarks by Guy Macon: I am satisfied with the result of the voting so far (remember, I never sought this position -- I was told that you needed help and was asked whether I would be willing to help here). I really do value feedback on my actions -- that's how we learn, and I just wish that I had not received pretty much 100% positive comments from various admins and DRN volunteers before coming here. Nonetheless, now that I have gotten that feedback, I will take it to heart and adapt my behavior. There is a huge difference between doing something before knowing that anyone has a problem with it and continuing to do it once someone has objected.

That being said, I get the feeling that some of the votes might have gone the other way, and so I am making the following offer in an attempt to sway those opinions:

I am confident enough that my performance would be satisfactory that I would be willing to commit to gracefully resigning if any one of the other mediators asked me to do so, as opposed to the normal two thirds superiority, and to remain open to recall by a single vote until such time as the Mediation Committee decides to lift that restriction with no dissenting votes.

Please consider whether this might change your vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I believe that the two "oppose" votes are firm. Also, there are other mediators (me included) who haven't voted. I'm not inclined to support your candidacy right now. As KillerChihuahua says, "in mediation one should also not alienate any of the parties, if at all possible. Candor must sometimes give way to tact." Based on all the discussion here. my view remains that the issues raised go directly to the principles of mediation. You have indicated your willingness to take that to heart. Rumiton suggests that you have the chance to display this with more article talk page work. I encourage you to do that and would be happy to consider a re-nomination for you to join the committee down the road. Sunray (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sound advice. I may revisit this around July of next year, but I think we are done for now. Again, no hard feelings, and advice very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sunray echoes my thoughts exactly. Not opposed to renomination in the future. Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree wholeheartedly on the renomination in a few months. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose If a mediator is supposed to be calming things down he has recently showed every possible attempt and method of creating and exacerbating drama. Within the last few days he has tagged me with: WP:CIVIL WP:NPA Uw-npa3 WP:BATTLEGROUND


 * Hey, perhaps I am guilty of these things, I don't actually believe that to be a fair analysis, but perhaps that's a matter of opinion. Whichever way you look at it, the way he has gone about resolving the dispute has been anything but diplomatic, and in my opinion, has been to generate in me only a very strong dislike for him in particular. He has shown anything but an even handed way of approaching a technical disagreement, and it has only served to exacerbate the situation.


 * Given that he is going for mediation position, you would think that he wouldn't be revert warring and extensively tagging and engaging in what might be considered character assassination across multiple talk pages; but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.


 * In short, I don't think that he is ready for this position in any way, he seems to be lacking the necessary character traits for this kind of work.Embrittled (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above appears to be about this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting

 * Members of the Committee should support or oppose the nomination in this section, with a rationale if appropriate. If a candidacy attracts two or more oppose votes, it will be declined.


 * Oppose Support . In the answer to my question, I get the sense that Guy Macon is a hard working and patient mediator. To jump in to such a divisive area, just out of Arbitration, and gain actual progress with the combatants demonstrates that GM is perfect for the protracted disputes that land at our door. Edit: No change after reading through recent comments, which I find unpersuasive. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) The ANI notice upsets my entire thinking about the nominee, in terms of dealing with issues in a patient and understanding manner. Since the nominee has problems discussing past criticism (though misguided criticism), I don't feel comfortable saying he would work well in formal mediation at this time. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Neutral. Guy knows how to deal with people, and how to deal with systems. He also has a great deal of experience dealing with disputes on Wikipedia. When you put all of that together you have the recipe for a very effective mediator, and I think he will be an excellent addition to the Committee. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this with my alternative account, so this is just a comment and not a change of vote. I have been thinking quite hard for the last couple of days about the evidence presented here after I originally voted, and I do have some concerns about it. I tried to write up my thoughts about this last night but I couldn't quite find the right words, and then I saw Sunray's question so I thought I would wait for Guy's answer. Now that there are two opposes in this section I may not have the leisure of waiting, however. I may write more about this privately to Guy, but for now I will just note that I am concerned that some of his comments have sometimes crossed the border into incivility, and that I think the ANI thread that he started about Momento and Ihardlythinkso was a bad idea. I hate to turn down someone who has done so much for dispute resolution on Wikipedia, however, and I don't want my concerns to take anything away from the fantastic work Guy has done at DRN and elsewhere. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm making my comment above official and switching to neutral. I don't think that the issues raised are enough to switch to an outright oppose, but they are enough to make me reconsider my support at this time. I expect that I would support another run in six months or so if Guy can address the concerns raised here. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support . I've been around Guy since his earliest DR days and have been consistently impressed with his efforts (though never so much as I am at the moment with his answer to M'lord Roem's question above). — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I reaffirm my prior vote in support of this candidate. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Changing to oppose: I feel really sad about having do do this. As I said above, I consider Guy a colleague and a great dispute resolutionist, but the purpose of the Mediation Committee is to reduce drama at Wikipedia, not increase it, and in light of the improvident ANI filing mentioned by Elen of the Roads, above, that's all that can result. Filing against folks who are opposing his nomination, however much it may or may not have been justified, makes it look like he's trying to manipulate this process. I truly don't believe that was what he was trying to do, but we must also avoid the mere appearance of impropriety. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Of course. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Although I understand the opposes, my view is the positives outweigh the negatives. Guy, I hope you re-submit your candidacy in due course, and otherwise, I agree with KC's comment; candor must sometimes give way to tact. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * The Chairman will post the outcome of the nomination in this section. Nominations last no less than ten days.


 * Not promoted, per the two-oppose rule. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.